Porn Valley [Associated Content.com]- Anti-pornography activists have said the Justice Department is not active in prosecuting pornographic websites that hurt families and children the most, but rather is involved in prosecuting only the most extreme pornography. Past Internet press reports have stated that it is not only the current Justice Department that is not doing enough to prosecute pornographers, but the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton also largely ignored the issue. A group of the anti-pornography leaders recently met with Justice Department officials and urged a change in policy.

Anti-porn activist Pat Trueman, who was once chief of the Justice Department’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity section, was at the meeting. He said prosecutors want to do more but feel hamstrung.

“Many prosecutors want to prosecute pornography-and not just the most extreme,” Trueman said in a press release for the website, www.onenewsnow.com. “This policy of prosecuting only the worst material was put in place during the Bill Clinton administration when Janet Reno was Attorney General.”

According to Trueman the policy that began then and is currently still in effect in the Justice Department of President Bush, of prosecuting only the worst offenders is weak and ineffective and does not protect children or families. That is because it ignores so much pornography that actually hurts children and families. Trueman said parents who do find their children viewing pornography on the Internet don’t find them looking at pornography that involves animals and other extreme types, but that is all the Justice Department wants to prosecute.

Trueman says that because of the inaction of the Justice Department, a “green light” has been given to hundreds of thousands of websites to expand. He said the Justice Department is involved in prosecuting only about one percent of online pornography.

Trueman said the softer pornography which is not prosecuted is often produced by large companies. He said for that reason that by prosecuting only 20 to 30 companies, “you’d virtually do away with all” commercial Internet pornography sites.

While not all pornography children may view online may be child pornography, some is, and on May 1, 2002, Michael J. Heimbach, of the Crimes Against Children Unit, of the Criminal Investigative Division, of the FBI testified before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives. He testified as to some of the effects of child pornography on children and the obstacles in prosecuting the pornographers.

He said that “unequivocally, yes,” child pornographers use child pornography to seduce children. He added that “sexual predators routinely send images of child pornography” to agents posing as children. The pornography sent typically shows a picture of a child the same age as the FBI agent has pretended to be.

As to the issue of specifically prosecuting online child pornography, Heimbach said the Supreme Court hindered such prosecution in the Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition case. He said even though that is the case, the Court left open “legislative avenues to protect our children from harm.”

While the testimony did not speak of the effects of or the users of other online pornography, Heimbach said those in one email child pornography group included such people as a school bus driver, a foster parent, a mentor for underprivileged children, a member of the armed forces, and others.